Friday, 30 November 2012 - 10:43am
In all seriousness, this is nuts. Decoding this "plan" from euphemisms back into English, we have:
- Rolling back the government's feeble gestures in the direction of environmental responsibility, because obviously climate change is a lie masterminded by [insert name of favoured global conspiracy here].
- Cutting taxes on the local wealthy (Gina wants her driveway pebbledashed with diamonds - very tasteful) and foreign corporations.
- Cutting wages and conditions for workers.
- Cutting government services and support for the needy.
- Subsidising transport costs for big business, because why should Gina pay for shipping our non-renewable resources overseas?
This is all textbook, long-discredited, supply-side, trickle-down, voodoo economics serving no purpose except class warfare. If there were problems with investment and production, we'd be seeing inflation, and we're just not. I'm no fan of Labor, but "the weakest jobs growth in more than a decade" is not a bad result compared to other wealthy countries who have followed the gifts-for-the-wealthy-austerity-for-the-rest prescription as proposed above since 2008. The GFC is a demand crisis, and what you do in a demand crisis is raise taxes on the wealthy, increase income support to the poor, and increase spending on infrastructure that serves the needs of the local population, not mining companies.
I'd be surprised if early drafts didn't also include cracking down on illegal latino immigration, since this is a near-verbatim copy of the Romney-Ryan "plan". Here's wishing the coalition the same degree of success, for all our sakes.
Update: This just in: the AFR reports the resources boom is "faltering faster than expected", which is pretty much - erm - as expected. So from here on in, you can subsidise, cut taxes, and flog workers all you want, but it's not going to make the Chinese buy raw materials for products they don't plan to manufacture, and couldn't sell if they did. And also as expected, the knock-on effects elsewhere in the Australian economy are already evident.
Friday, 30 November 2012 - 9:56am
"Our Deregulation Reform Agenda"? I know the Advocate likes to see itself as a feisty little campaigning tabloid, but to have it's own Deregulation Reform Agenda, with capital letters and everything, is jolly impressive.
I'm joking of course. It's an absolute outrage. If mere independent local councilors can deliver press-ready copy, why can't the National Party get their act together? The staff at the Advocate are professional journalists; they have better things to do than translate press releases into the third person. They probably have four or five photos of the mayor to build stories around, an ambulance or three to chase, and a baker's dozen of local businesses receiving prestigious industry awards to churn through in time for Saturday's edition.
I mean, it's the age of the Internet, isn't it? Traditional media have to compete with bloggers, who really just echo content generated elsewhere, whereas struggling local papers like the Advocate have press releases, wire services, and advertorial copy to contend with. Meanwhile the National Party are living in some Woodward and Bernstein time warp where they probably imagine journalists have nothing better to do than original investigative reporting. Just goes to show how out of touch they are.
Update: I see "our Deregulation Reform Agenda" has been amended to "a Deregulation Reform Agenda". Now, your bonus question for extra points: What is a Deregulation Reform Agenda, other than three random, focus-group-tested words smooshed together?
Are they proposing reforming deregulation? That is, conceding that deregulation has been a rotten idea all along, and the time is ripe for re-regulation? That is an Agenda, with a capital "A", almost as appealing as my Sobriety Reform Agenda. Excuse me while I implement it.
Wednesday, 28 November 2012 - 4:46pm
I'm having a hard time believing that the revenue from coin-operated light switches figured very prominently in the Group Cex Club's calculations here.
The overwhelming incentive for clubs to support so-called "intra-clubs" is the pokie tax rebate rort, aka. ClubGRANTS. The parent club works out how much pokie tax it doesn't want to pay, invoices it's intra-clubs for that amount - ostensibly for the services it provides to them - and immediately "donates" the money back. The NSW government then obligingly deducts the pretend value of these "donations" from the club's pokie tax bill.
It's a neat little swindle, but sadly it does have it's limits, and in this case it turns out not to be worth $50,000. Sorry, snooker players; you've outlived your usefulness.
Wednesday, 28 November 2012 - 12:14am
The gap between "I've had a few drinks, I'm feeling pretty good, and have half a mind to go mad and stay up all night," and "Actually, I think I might turn in shortly," is now somewhere in the region of thirty seconds.
Saturday, 24 November 2012 - 1:01pm
Let's look at the constitution of this latest brains trust:
- A Coffs CBD landlord who is doing very well thank you out of the status quo,
- A shopping mall architect,
- A builder who cheerfully admits decades of responsibility for metastasising the Group Cex Club, the biggest and ugliest concrete bunker in the region,
- GM of property speculators Gowings, a company so lethally parasitic they were able to suck the life out of the oldest and most respected retailer in Sydney.
I admit I can't imagine how the Coffs CBD could possibly be a more depressing place, but I daresay these fellows could.
Saturday, 24 November 2012 - 12:35pm
I've always been very impressed by how natural and untainted by "improvements" are our local beaches and surrounds, and was quite disappointed to learn that this is more the result of benign neglect than good management. Here's hoping council staff put their shoulders to the wheel and ensure Operation Boob Job collapses under the weight of it's own terms of reference.
Friday, 23 November 2012 - 9:45pm
It's good to see the Coffs Clarence police are finally unleashing a storm of responsibility on the threat of congregating carelessness. All too often law enforcement becomes bogged down by tedious distinctions between legal and illegal activity. To D.I. Lindsay and all in the LAC, I say "Mate, I'll always give you the heads up."
Remember kids, always hitch your loose thumbs securely behind your belts.
Saturday, 17 November 2012 - 9:26am
"Douglas! Come meet our new tenant!"
A large teddy bear of a man, cleaning the lenses of a pair of reading glasses on a corner of his cardigan, rounded the corner from the large living area at the far end of the hallway.
"Isn't he a handsome boy?" gushed Glenda proudly, as though assuming some responsibility for whatever comeliness was to be found there.
"Fine looking fellow," he concurred, smiling warmly. "Doug Henshaw. Pleased to meet you." He extended a hand, which Tim shook, detecting not a trace of macho over-firmness. "Let me show you to your digs."
What the estate agent had described as a granny flat, Tim would have described as a small house. It was situated halfway down a concrete path that ran the length of a huge back yard, and reminded him of the detached cottages in a caravan park where his family had stayed on one particularly rainy and generally ill-fated holiday. Except that it was nice. Overwhelmingly nice. Everything in the place had been procured and assembled with such a painstaking attention to niceness that he could only imagine that on completion, the person responsible had promptly committed suicide, their lifelong devotion to all things nice complete. "Good heavens! This is palatial! Are you sure you're charging enough?"
"Very kind of you to say so. We had it fixed up for my mother a few years ago. Only accumulating dust since. She passed away in intensive care; never got to stay a single night in the end."
"I'm sorry." And relieved. As a lifelong ardent sceptic, Tim knew he would otherwise be listening out for her ghost at night.
"Very satisfying the way the family came together for her. Lovely service, beautiful headstone."
Tim had been searching Doug's countenance for a trace of the mean streak that he'd been warned about, and concluded he'd find more lurking menace in a litter of labrador puppies. Both Doug and Glenda spoke with the slightly slurred diction of the stroke victim, the perpetually slightly drunk, or the very expensively educated. Tim guessed the third, and possibly the second. Still, the genial attitude was infectious, and he was beginning to feel very good indeed about his new situation.
"You can bring your car around the side when you're ready."
"That's okay," said Tim, heaving his bags onto his new double (queen sized?) bed, "I don't have a car."
"Ah! Might be able to help you there. I have a cousin in the trade. He should be able to sort you out with something reasonable."
"Don't have a license, in fact." Then, realising this may be interpreted as an admission of being a serial dangerous/drunk driver, he added "Never had one."
"Oh." Doug seemed genuinely flummoxed by this and unable to formulate a response. "Never mind," he said at last, "We're about to pop into town to run a few errands. I daresay you'll want to get settled in."
"Yes. I might go for a walk later. Thanks for the very kind welcome."
"Very pleased to have you. Good to finally get some use out of the old shed. Feel free to pop in whenever you need anything, or just for a natter. We keep a very open house. Truth be told, Glenda's often at a loose end since she retired, and a bit of conversation now and then will keep her from going completely ga-ga." He winked conspiratorially, and Tim couldn't help but smile.
"I'll do my best."
His new landlord departed with a cheery wave, leaving Tim to marvel at how yet again he'd managed to land on his feet. Tucking a few nagging threads of guilt into the back pockets of his mind, he lay on the bed, giving it an experimental bounce as he took in the details of his new home. His bed was at the far end of the cabin, beside a curtained window looking out onto the garden. Nice wardrobe at the end of the bed, with a nice but empty recess for a TV which he would fill in due course. Nice lounge, nice coffee table, nice kitchenette in the far corner with a very nice breakfast bar affair surrounded by nice stools. The door to what he assumed was a nice bathroom/laundry was mercifully closed. He would save that niceness for later. No point overdoing it.
After a nap, he would have a shower and amble down to what on his map was labelled "New Town Shopping Centre". Tim was very pleased to see the map had a picture of a half-full glass at one corner of the complex, which he took to denote some sort of pub. "Very nice," he mumbled to himself as he kicked off his shoes and drifted off to complete the previous night's sleep.
Saturday, 17 November 2012 - 7:29am
"Mum! Mum! What's this slimy trail?"
"That's prestige, son. The queen has it; Crown Lager, waterfront property, industry awards, and the McDonalds McAngus burger all have it. Now that man has it. No! Don't touch it! It's not for the likes of us."
A Very Brief Introduction to Open Standards
Introduction
Computer technology at it's most basic level is the storage, retrieval, and distribution of data. For different computer systems to operate together, they must employ the same methods of storage, retrieval, and distribution; that is, they must adhere to common standards.
For any two parties that wish to share data, the simplest way of achieving this is for both to simply use the same software from the same vendor to access the data. When a majority resorts to this method of achieving interoperability, the software they use becomes known as a de-facto standard. The widespread use of the many variants of Microsoft™ Word format is an example of this. De-facto standards are usually proprietary standards; how they work is considered a trade secret. It is difficult, and often illegal, to write other software that works with proprietary standards.
Often, an individual or organisation may claim a monopoly a particular standard through software idea patents, but license it's use to third parties. The MP3 audio compression algorithm is an example of this.
Alternatively, open standards define common data formats and transfer protocols which are available for anybody to implement and use. For example, the core standards which define how the Internet works are open standards.
Principles
There is no definitive description of what constitutes an open standard. Most attempts to define open standards enumerate principles which may be condensed to the following two:
1. Public Specification
The standard must be published so that it is technically possible for anybody to implement the standard. Software authors should be able to refer to the standard to write compliant software. Users should be able to refer to the standard to help them use software that complies with the standard.
Preferably, the development of an open standard should be open to public scrutiny and participation.
2. Free to Use
Anybody should be able to implement or use an open standard, without restriction.
It is possible in many countries to patent the algorithms (abstract ideas, distinct from the concrete expression of those ideas as computer code) contained in computer software. The patent holder not only has copyright over their own implementation of an idea, but also the right to restrict anybody else writing their own software which uses the same technique. This is somewhat analogous to the writer of a play or a novel being granted not only monopoly control over the publication or performance of their own work, but also any subsequent work by any author which can be shown to have a similar plot.
Most advocates of open standards insist that any technology used in a standard must at least be available for use under a royalty-free license. Many maintain that this still allows a patent holder to withhold the royalty-free license at some later point at time, and that therefore no standard that contains patented techniques can be considered an open standard.
Benefits of Open Standards
Some of the benefits of using open standards include:
Lower Cost
Open standards are free for anybody to implement, meaning that end-users can usually choose from many different software packages that perform the same task in the same way. This exposes software vendors to competitive pressure, lowering the acquisition cost of software based on open standards.
Lower Risk
The use of proprietary standards makes the user a hostage to the whims and fortunes of the owner of those standards. For example, the owner of a proprietary file format may at some point go out of business, or decide to discontinue support for that file format. If you store data in that format, you may subsequently find yourself unable to access your data as easily as you would like, if at all.
Interoperability
The use of open standards gives those with whom you share data the option to use software which best suits their needs.
Open standards allow software from different vendors to work together, allowing you to choose the best software for each task, rather than relying exclusively on software from one company.
Flexibility
Because software designed around open standards essentially works the same way, it is easy to adopt software that precisely suits your needs, rather than being forced to use the software that everybody else uses.
Faster Development and Implementation
Open standards make it easier to write software by defining standard ways to perform common tasks.
If the file formats and interfaces of the software you are using comply with open standards, you can easily replace this software with other software that complies with the same standards.